From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 5 09:04:26 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03BFA16A4CE for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (duey.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB25843D2F for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:04:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C281FEF3; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:04:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (duey.wolves.k12.mo.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 57664-01-69; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:04:24 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 007871FEF2; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:04:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2F591A928; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:04:23 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:04:23 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Dillon To: Steve Ireland In-Reply-To: <010b01c40262$26517660$1a01a8c0@blackstar.net> Message-ID: <20040305104807.N59495@duey.wolves.k12.mo.us> References: <03b501c4024b$42288110$fe00a8c0@wskatinka> <010b01c40262$26517660$1a01a8c0@blackstar.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at wolves.k12.mo.us cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Networking problem UPDATED X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 17:04:26 -0000 On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Steve Ireland wrote: > The two interfaces are on different subnets: 192.168.0.0/24 and > 192.168.10.0/24. You need to either add a static route between them > or change their netmasks to at least a /21. Huh? They _must_ be on different subnets. You can't route one subnet across multiple network interfaces. Besides, a router always knows how to route packets between its own directly-attached networks, no additional routes are necessary. The problem here is that a route needs to be added for 192.168.10.0/24 -> 192.168.0.100 in the upstream router(s), since the upstream router(s) do not currently know to send any packets destined for 192.168.10.0/24 to 192.168.0.100 for delivery. The upstream router is currently sending these packets to its own default gateway, which is likely even further upstream. IP routers aren't mind-readers, you have to tell them exactly where to send packets, but usually that is very simple. Running a routing protocol (such as RIP) on both the FreeBSD box in question and the upstream router(s) would automatically add the same route for you, but that is unnecessary in such a simple network configuration. -- Chris Dillon - cdillon(at)wolves.k12.mo.us FreeBSD: The fastest, most open, and most stable OS on the planet - Available for IA32, IA64, AMD64, PC98, Alpha, and UltraSPARC architectures - PowerPC, ARM, MIPS, and S/390 under development - http://www.freebsd.org Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?